> I thought we had agreed that paleontology &
> astrophysics could be considered experimental sciences because "Nature" has
> provided them with a great number of relevant entities (fossils, stars &c)
> under different conditions & thus in a sense "done the experiments" for
> them. If this is not the case, can you explain why? If it is the case, can
> you explain why your restatement above is preferable.
>
I believe the creationist objection to this view (which I accept (the view, not
the objection)) would be that you can't establish continuity. You have a set of
observations of stars in different stages of development, but you don't have
foolproof means of connecting the images together in a time sequence -- that is
you can't establish beyond doubt that image B represents a precursor stage to
image A. Maybe image Q is better. Of course the same "reasoning" has been
applied to the fossil record ad nauseum. It might be useful to collect in one
place references to the means that astronomers use to tie images into a
timeline of stellar development, and means paleontologists use to develop
reasonable confidence that fossil A is in the ancestral line of fossil B.
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>